W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2005

RE: NEW: Issue #1552 [2.2 L1: extend time limit / invalidate activity]

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:25:53 -0500
To: "'Christophe Strobbe'" <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050815132533.7575360C17F@eq1.spamarrest.com>

Hmmmm

This introduces the term  " and disability accommodations"

This is undefined. How would you define it?


 The whole provision is in fact a 'disability accommodation I think - so
would this make recursive SC? 


I'm trying to see what this adds. 

Thanks 


 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Christophe Strobbe
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 7:24 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW: Issue #1552 [2.2 L1: extend time limit / invalidate
activity]


At 06:52 12/08/2005, you wrote:

>[(...) The following NEW issue was added to Bugzilla (...).]
>
>   concern about "invalidating the activity"
>     -> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1552

I was considering a proposal to address issue 1459
(http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1459) which was also
based on a comment by the same person as for issue 1552:
"
I believe that the US ADA allows extensions even for time-based testing as a
disability accommodation, so I'd like to see this comment be more
forgiving."


These are comments from the survey on GL 2.2:
'Extended time-limits for tests, examinations, etc., is accepted as a
reasonable accommodation for students with disabilities (e.g., dyslexia)
under the US Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended. This Act applies to
entities, including public schools as well as universities, that receive
financial support from the US federal government. As I read the proposed SC,
it would permit the kind of extended time-limits required by Section 504.
Even if a time limit is "an essential" part of an activity such as an
examination, the ability to extend it to comply with applicable law is also
"an essential" part of the activity. (I don't believe Section 504 requires
indefinite extensions for examinations; typical are additional 50% and
sometimes 100%.)' [From first survey.]

'As I read the proposed SC, it would permit the kind of extended time-limits
required by Section 504. Even if a time limit is "an essential" 
part of an activity such as an examination, the ability to extend it to
comply with applicable law is also "an essential" part of the activity.' [I
can no longer find the exact source for this.]

Someone else proposed a rewording: 'without violating the purpose of the
activity' instead of 'without invalidating the activity'. [First survey.]

So the 5th bullet in 2.2 L1 SC1 could be reworded as follows:

<proposal>
the time-out is part of an activity where timing is essential (for example,
competitive gaming or time-based testing) and time limits and disability
accommodations can not be extended further without violating the purpose of
the activity.
</proposal>

<current>
the time-out is part of an activity where timing is essential (for example,
competitive gaming or time-based testing) and time limits can not be
extended further without invalidating the activity.
<current>

This is not an "official" proposal; I'll come back to this when we start the
next round of issue summaries and proposals.

Regards,

Christophe Strobbe
Received on Monday, 15 August 2005 13:25:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:39 GMT